What makes a Microsoft technology stack a poor choice? Any site at the scale of MySpace is going to have hundreds of hacks to make it scale that no one wants to touch. MySpace was able to launch their 1.0 in days and become the leading social network (for a while), without major scaling issues.
Any site at the scale of MySpace is going to have hundreds of hacks to make it scale that no one wants to touch.
I disagree.
From what I saw while I was there, Google scales through good process and discipline. I'm sure there are hacks that I didn't see that make things more efficient. However if you are truly dependent on scary hacks just to keep running, then you will fall apart when your scale increases, those hacks fail, and nobody knows how to make it work. Which is why Google is so big on scaling through good process and discipline.
As for why Microsoft is possibly a poor choice, there is a lot more institutional experience out there for making Linux scale than making the Microsoft stack scale. Furthermore Microsoft forces you to pay a hefty licensing tax for very unclear returns. So you're paying money to sail into uncharted territory and hope you can make it work.
But all that said, if they have architectural problems, odds are very high that the biggest problems are in the software that they wrote rather than the technology stack they use.
Comments
What makes a Microsoft technology stack a poor choice? Any site at the scale of MySpace is going to have hundreds of hacks to make it scale that no one wants to touch. MySpace was able to launch their 1.0 in days and become the leading social network (for a while), without major scaling issues.
Any site at the scale of MySpace is going to have hundreds of hacks to make it scale that no one wants to touch.
I disagree.
From what I saw while I was there, Google scales through good process and discipline. I'm sure there are hacks that I didn't see that make things more efficient. However if you are truly dependent on scary hacks just to keep running, then you will fall apart when your scale increases, those hacks fail, and nobody knows how to make it work. Which is why Google is so big on scaling through good process and discipline.
As for why Microsoft is possibly a poor choice, there is a lot more institutional experience out there for making Linux scale than making the Microsoft stack scale. Furthermore Microsoft forces you to pay a hefty licensing tax for very unclear returns. So you're paying money to sail into uncharted territory and hope you can make it work.
But all that said, if they have architectural problems, odds are very high that the biggest problems are in the software that they wrote rather than the technology stack they use.